IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 4 May 1907, Page 3

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

CAPE COLONY'S WISHES. London, May 2. Dr. Jameson, in a clever speech endorsed every word Mr. Deakin had said. The colonies were ripe for action and a'l were awaiting the British Government's decision. The colonies had not asked Britain to sacrifice fiscal principles hut ■ had asked her to change her methods and a&pt them to the practice of the prince of preference, if only liv reducing duties. He dwelt on the gcrat advantage to South Africa if the duties on tobacco and wine were reduced, and emphasised that two territories in South Africa were absolutely under control of the British Government. He had been directed to adhere to the Customs' Union of South Africa, which gave preference to the Motherland, and hoped that that indicated the possibility of an- ' other advance. He mentioned that a minority in the Cape Parliament opposed further preference, and possibly opposed even a continuance of the present preference, unless Britain was prepared to give reciprocity to some small extent. Mr. Moor (Natal Premier) urged an experimental reduction of the duty on tobacco. The debate will be resumed to-day. IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER POINT BLANK REFUSAL OF PREFERENCE. SIR W. LYNE RESENTFUL. London, May 2. At the Conference the Right Hon. H. 'Asquith (Chancellor of the Exchequer) point-blank refused any fiscal prefer- • ence. He indicated vaguely the possibility of assisting steam lines and cables. Mr. Deakin asked if Mr. Asquith meant to exclude consideration of Mr. Hofmeyer's and Sir George Sydenham Clarke's schemes, which involved neither protection nor free trade. Mr. Asquith asked for time to consider. Sir W. Lyne dissented from Mr. Asquith from the foundation to the summit of his pronouncement, which was calculated to lessen the sympathies of the colonies. He resented Mr. Asquith's attempts to belittle the value of preferences as at present conceded. PREMIERS INCENSED AT REPORTS SUPPLIED. London, May 2. The Premiers are incensed at th< ludicrous inadequate and inaccuracy ol the precis of discussions. The press evince extraordinary inter est, and clamor for fuller publicity. The Premiers are receiving many hundreds of tariff reform resolutions from'all over the country. Free trade leagues declare they could do the same if they chose. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, in the House of Commons, hinted that a full report would be published after the Conference. Certainly no preferential treatment would he extended to one •abject over another so far as the Government was concerned. He hoped that every syllable would be published. INDIA OPPOSED TO PREFERENCE. f. Received 3rd, 0.2 p.m. ; London, May 3. Mr. Mackay, speakng on belialf of India, regretted being at variance with the autonomous colonies, though the Indian Government tried to regard preference from an Imperial as well as an Indian standpoint. Under the existing system, India enjoyed a highly advan- . tagcous position, and her external seaboard trade had increased 66 per cent. during a decade. Some of her best customers were protected countries in Europe, without whose markets she wou'.d be unable to dispose of her produce. If India kept outside preference, might treat her separately, but otherwise they might retaliate, hurting Indian trade. India had nothing to gain by the Empire adopting a syßtem of tariffs discriminating against foreign manufactured products and food staffs. The risks and sacrifices involved were too great for India to accept. Any preference granted to the United Kingdom by the autonomous Colonies ought also to lie granted to India. Mr. Botha said he personally favored preference,-but had not been long enough in office to get a mandate from tile Transvaal, therefore he adhered to the resolution of 1902. Sir P. Bond adhered to the resolution of 1902, though Newfoundland desired to co-operate in a policy of preference. Mr. Asquith acknowledged the ability and clearness with which the Colonial case was presented. He was glad to notice that nothing had been said calculated to weaken the sense of Imperial unity, or the determination to cement unity. He dwelt on the great advantage of discussing such subjects face to face. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he had often emphasised that the basis of unity must be the right of each member of the Empire first to regard its own interests. A FREE TRADE SPEECH. REPLY TO THE COLONTRS. Received 3rd, 10.48 p.m. London, May 3. Mr. Asquith continuing, said the essential characteristic of the Empire was that it combined the loyal attachment of each other, with the completest freedom and self-government. British statesmen had never forgotten the lesson of American independence, and would not attempt to again force a fiscal policy on rejuctant possession. The colonies were granted full fiscal independence, and even used it to build up tariff walls against

the Motherland. If the colonies desired to foster their industries by protective tariffs, their action would not evoke remonstrative criticism from him. Some had given preference to the Motherland, - but did not admit the Motherland's manufactures to compete on equal terms with local producers. Doubtless, the Colonies held that was vital to their interests. Similarly the British (iovemment held that free trade was vital to British interests, even more so than in Peel's day. We, a population of fortyfour millions, besides an enormous debt and also the cost of Imperial diplomacy and defence, are a population dependent for food and raw materials or external sources of supply. Britain maintains her supremacy owing to her special productive activity, the profits obtained from the biggest open market in the world, and the enormous earning of shipping, all based on keeping a good range of material on the same basis, and as nearly as possible the same price. free trade' was no shibboleth, but a principle of vital national interest. After an elaborate tariff campaign,' the British people bad declared in favor of free trade by a majority unexampled in size. The British government was unable to accept any infringement of that policy, even by adopting Dr. Jameson's idea of experimental reductions on tobacco and wine. Replying to Mr Deakin's complaint thai Australia was excluded from foreign markets by a hostile tariff, Mr. Asquitli declared that we particularly everywhere enjoyed most favored nation treatment. We stood in a lietter position on protected markets thau did nations imdiT the protective system. Next to India and Ceylon, Germany was the best market abroad for the products of the United Kingdom. Though the volume of British trade had largely increased, the proportion as between the Colonies and foreign countries remained practically constant. Examining preference, he admitted that South Africa was very liberal, but it was too "early to judge the effect on British trade. Canada's tariff benefited British trade, rather by stopping decrease than by actual increase. Canadian manufacturers remain protected. Received 3rd, 11.17 p.m. Continuing, Mr. Asqulth said the Australian proposal only applied to 8 per cent, of the United Kingdom's products. The maximum profit to the British importer would not exceed one hundred thousand pounds. _ Mr. Deakin and Sir W. T/rne inter jected that that was only an instalment , Mr. Asquith: Perhaps so, but be was dealing with facts. Preference was only given to goods in British ships, manned with White labor, This was a seriou, consideration, involving a policy the BriUsn (government must depreciate. He hu not intended_to criticise, and only wish, c toahow the difficulties in the' way u. fixing a preferential tariff advantai'outo Britain where there was a system o protection. In a free trade country where duties were levied for reven-' only, the difficulties were much gipifii Mr. Asqulth' complimented Sn r f L JP»rd <nsMMe aqut powerful advocne

LATEST CABLE NEWS CNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION—HY EIECTBIC TEtEGBAPH.—COI'VBIGIIT.

of preference. He thought some of his suggestions were valuable. .Mr. Asquiih remarked that New Zealand's preference covered only twenty per cent, of the import trade, Besides it did not lower duties, hut raised them against foreigners. Britain at present offered the freest possible market. Preferential tariffs involved giving tess to other people, and not more to the Colonies. They involve setting up a system of new duties which infringed the root principles of free trade. On the question of principle, there was no possibility of such compromises as some suggested. .Mr. Asquiih proceeded to consider on what preference must be given if given at all. !n IUU3, Britain imported from the Colonies five and a half millions in articles, wholly or partly manufactured; thirtytwo and a half millions in raw materials; twenty-seven and three-quarter millions in food, drink, and tobacco. Preference, to be valuable, must be in respect of raw materials. If such were granted, the very citadel of free trade would bo

attacked, sources of supply restricted, and prices raised. Th.i Government and the people of England accepted that view, and were therefore unable to accept the' principle of preferential trade by tariff preference. The discussion had thrown light on another method of improving inter-Imperial trade. He especially referred to Sir Joseph Ward's suggestions for the improvement of means of communication, especially steamer services, the increase in the number of ■commercial agents in the Colonies, the desirability of removing or ■reducing Suez Canal dues, and establishing a fast mail line to Austraalsia via Canada. In all these matters, the British Government was fully ready to consider, and cooperate in practical proposals. Concluding, he said he had felt it necessary to enunciate a general policy not in accord with the views of the Colonies. The Conference, generally, considered that ilr. Asquith delivered an exceptionally clear, cogent and powerfully speech from the standpoint of abstract free trade. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S OPINION*. Received 4th, 12.34 a.m. London, May 3. Sir Joseph Ward says he was not surprised at the Government's general attitude, nor did he challenge Britain's right to adhere to whatever policy she considered best suited to her circumstances, but he had hoped that the Government might have seen its way to give preference to a few special articles, like wheat, meat and dairy produce, since

active colonial competition would kec|) prices as low as now. He thought such a policy of specialising quite consistent with free trade. While disappointed that nothing had been done in the direction of preference, he was pleased with the prospect of Suez Canal charges, and providing a mail service which would place Australia within fifteen days of London and Xew Zealand twenty. Those benefits would be of considerable importance.